Featured items of distributed discussion collaboration

ABSTRACT

In an embodiment, a method for distributed discussion collaboration is provided. The computer-implemented method includes selecting a featured discussion item for each of one or more collaborators based on information associated with each respective collaborator. The method also includes providing selected featured discussion items for display to respective one or more collaborators. The method further includes receiving voting information for the featured discussion items displayed to the respective one or more collaborators. In another embodiment, a system for distributed discussion collaboration includes a selection module configured to select a featured discussion item for each of one or more collaborators based on information associated with each respective collaborator. The system also includes a view controller and a voting module.

BACKGROUND

Speakers often invite questions from an audience. Some questions mightbenefit the majority of the participants while other questions may onlyhave the effect of needlessly sidetracking a speaker. Sometimes goodquestions may never get asked or answered.

Some presentation formats allow questions to be submitted in text byparticipants in a presentation or event. Such formats are provided fordistance learning, online presentations and teleconferences. However,the questions of other participants are usually never seen by all of theparticipants. The questions that do get answered are usually picked insonic ad hoc fashion by a moderator. Audience members may not have achance to decide or influence which questions they want to haveanswered.

Participants often like to respond to and influence discussion topics.Some event hosts welcome or seek input from participants and are betterserved by such participation. Frequently, participants can determinewhich questions, topics or discussion items are most important toparticipants. This determination can include participant votes on thequality or popularity of a discussion item. However, the discussion itemreceiving the most positive votes for a discussion item may not berepresentative of the participant group as a whole.

Potential questions can be presented to individual participants in orderto elicit their voting input before they are formally asked of the hostor guest. Unfortunately, these questions are usually selected at randomand may not be presented to the right demographic of participants.Discussion items provided to participants at random can also beineffective in encouraging further participation by the participants.Furthermore, votes for a discussion item may be unchecked by morereliable participants.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Embodiments described herein relate to systems and methods fordistributed discussion collaboration. In an embodiment, a system fordistributed discussion collaboration is provided. The system includes aselection module configured to select a featured discussion item foreach of one or more collaborators based on information associated witheach respective collaborator. The system also includes a view controllerconfigured to provide the selected featured discussion items for displayto respective one or more collaborators. The system further includes avoting module configured to receive voting information for the featureddiscussion items displayed to the respective one or more collaborators.

In another embodiment, a method for distributed discussion collaborationis provided. The computer-implemented method includes selecting afeatured discussion item for each of one or more collaborators based oninformation associated with each respective collaborator. The methodalso includes providing, selected featured discussion items for displayto respective one or more collaborators. The method further includesreceiving voting information for the featured discussion items displayedto the respective one or more collaborators. In another embodiment, thediscussion items are submitted and voted on during a live event.

In a further embodiment, a method for distributed discussioncollaboration during a live event having a focal point of discussion isprovided. A live event having a focal point of discussion may include,but is not limited to, a talk, presentation, speech, performance,debate, panel discussion, athletic event, play, town hall meeting,showing, viewing, or any other event that occurs in real-time duringwhen collaborators may participate and collaborate in a distributeddiscussion. A focal point of discussion may include, but is not limitedto, a speaker, what is being presented, a political candidate, a panelof speakers, an actor, a singer, an athlete, video or any other personor thing that draws the attention of an audience or participants to thesame focus of discussion during the live evert. The computer-implementedmethod includes selecting a featured discussion item for each of one ormore collaborators based on information associated with each respectivecollaborator, wherein the discussion items were electronically submittedby collaborators during the live event and the discussion items relateto the focal point of discussion. The method also includes providingselected featured discussion items for display to respective one or morecollaborators participating in the live event. The method furtherincludes receiving voting information for the featured discussion itemsdisplayed to the respective one or more collaborators during the liveevent.

Further embodiments, features, and advantages of the invention, as wellas the structure and operation of the various embodiments of theinvention are described in detail below with reference to accompanyingdrawings.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

Embodiments of the invention are described with reference to theaccompanying drawings. In the drawings, like reference numbers mayindicate identical or functionally similar elements. The drawing inwhich an element first appears is generally indicated by the left-mostdigit in the corresponding reference number.

FIG. 1 illustrates a system for distributed discussion collaboration,according to an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 2 illustrates another system for distributed discussioncollaboration, according to an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 3 illustrates a user view, according to an embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating a method for distributed discussioncollaboration, according to an embodiment of the invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

While the present invention is described herein with reference toillustrative embodiments for particular applications, it should beunderstood that the invention is not limited thereto. Those skilled inthe art with access to the teachings provided herein will recognizeadditional modifications, applications, and embodiments within the scopethereof and additional fields in which the invention would be ofsignificant utility.

Participants often like to respond to and influence discussion topics.Potential questions can be presented to individual participants in orderto elicit their voting input before they are formally asked of the hostor guest. A discussion item selected for presentation to a participantmay be referred to as a featured item. Unfortunately, these questionsare usually selected at random and may not be presented to the rightdemographic of participants. Discussion items provided to participantsat random can also be ineffective in encouraging further participationby the participants. Furthermore, votes for a discussion item may beunchecked by more reliable participants.

According to aspects of the invention, the selection of which discussionitems to feature to which participants can be more finely tuned toimprove the quality of the discussion items and to increaseparticipation. Purposeful selection of featured items can morediplomatically determine which discussion items will be seen, voted on,rejected, or ultimately answered. This helps to ensure that eachsubmission is given a chance to take the lead based on its merit.According to embodiments of the invention, submitted items may betracked over time to ensure that old favorites do not gain an unfairlead over more recent favorites. Customizing the selection of featureditems for each collaborator can maximize the value of distributedcollaboration and make more efficient use of the collaborators' time.

Embodiments described herein refer to systems and methods fordistributed discussion collaboration. A collaborative event may involvemultiple collaborators that can be distributed in the same physicalvicinity of the speaker or presenter or in different locations butparticipating in the same event. An event may include a live event,talk, topic of discussion, presentation, meeting, speech, debate,roundtable, panel, question and answer session, or any other formatwhere participants may contribute to a presentation or discussion.Collaborators may be participants, audience members, employees,students, attendees or any other group of people focused on a topic,person, group of persons, or any other focal point of discussion.Collaborators can be invited to the event or otherwise allowed toparticipate. According to many embodiments, the methods and systemsreferred to herein are meant to augment, not replace, live participantsand questioners.

Example Systems for Distributed Discussion Collaboration

FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary system 100 for distributed discussioncollaboration, according to an embodiment of the present invention.System 100 shows client device 102. Client device 102 may be a computingdevice having one or more processors or memories (e.g., computer, mobiledevice, laptop, cell phone, smart phone, media player, or set-top box).System 100 also shows server 110, which may be a computing device havingone or more processors or memories (e.g., computer, mobile device,laptop, cell phone, smart phone, media player, or set-top box) operatingin a server capacity. Further, a computing device can include, but isnot limited to, a device having a processor and memory for executing andstoring instructions. Software may include one or more applications andan operating system. Hardware can include, but is not limited to, aprocessor, memory and graphical user interface display. The computingdevice may also have multiple processors and multiple shared or separatememory components. For example, the computing device may be a clusteredcomputing environment or server farm. Server 110 and client devices 102may be coupled directly or over network 130.

In an embodiment, server 110 may include view controller 112, votingmodule 114 and selection module 116. View controller 112 may beconfigured to provide featured items for display through a web browseror through any other customized application or display, according to anembodiment. The display may include a place where one or more featureditems may be presented to a collaborator to be voted on by thecollaborator. In an embodiment, view controller 112 may control thedisplay on client device 102. View controller 112 may also exist onclient device 102. In yet another embodiment, it is desirable that viewcontroller 112 be configured to display the featured item and/or votinginformation in a clean and simple manner. In some cases, collaboratorsmay be allowed to personally customize some aspects of the display. Inother cases, view controller 112 may function during periods of timewhen client device 102 is not connected to server 110. According to anembodiment, an agenda for an event can be created and/or displayed usingview controller 112.

Featured items may be selected from discussion items submitted bycollaborators and received by server 110, according to embodiments ofthe invention. Discussion items may include questions, topics, or otherpoints of presentation or discussion. Collaborators may submit newdiscussion items digitally, textually, visibly or audibly through clientdevice 102. In other cases, collaborators may submit new discussionitems by another physical manifestation, recorded manually orautomatically by system 100. Existing discussion items may also bechanged or edited. Client device 102 may use a form, webpage, microphoneor any other means for obtaining discussion items and transmitting themto server 110. According to an embodiment, view controller 112 may beconfigured to provide featured items selected for particularcollaborators.

Discussion items may also include additional discussion iteminformation. Such information may include identification of thecollaborator contributing the discussion item, title of the contributor,a time and/or date of the discussion item, affiliation information, teaminformation, categorization information, or any other information thatmay be pertinent to improving the effectiveness of an event. In anembodiment, any combination of discussion item information may bepresent. In another embodiment, some or all of this item information maybe removed or marked as anonymous.

Selection module 116 may be configured to select a featured discussionitem for each of one or more collaborators, according to an embodiment.Selection module 116 may feature a discussion item for one collaboratorbut feature a different discussion item to another collaborator. In mostcases, each feature item can be individually selected for a collaboratorto vote on. According to an embodiment, this selection may be based oninformation associated with each respective collaborator. Collaboratorinformation may include any information about a collaborator, includinga collaborator's identity or preferences. For example, collaboratorinformation may include geographical or demographical information.Collaborator information can also include any information about thecollaborator's membership or position in an organization.

In another example, collaborator information may include informationproviding a measure of a collaborator's voting experience. Votingexperience may include a history of votes cast for various discussionitems for various events. Voting experience may include a duration oftime a collaborator has voted for discussion items or featured items.Voting experience may include a number of votes cast or a frequency ofparticipation. Discussion items voted on may be sub-categorized oranalyzed to provide more information about a collaborator's votingexperience. In an embodiment, a collaborator may be associated with ameasure or value indicating his or her voting experience. This value maybe attributed globally, for a series of events or topics or for a singleevent. A collaborator may have different values attributed to differentrepresentations of participation. Further embodiments of selectionmodule 116 will be described in a later section of this description.

Collaborators may be provided an opportunity to view and vote onfeatured items. Voting module 114 is responsible for the administrationand collection of voting information for featured items. In anembodiment, collaborators may be provided voting instructions or votinghelp through client device 102. Voting information may be collected fromcollaborators performing an action using client device 102. In anotherembodiment, voting may be performed by a physical manifestation. In sucha case the voting information may be collected and provided to votingmodule 114 manually or by some automatic process of system 100. In afurther embodiment, a polling mechanism may be employed. In anotherembodiment, collaborators may skip a featured question or flag it asinappropriate.

Voting information may be collected according to a voting configuration.The voting configuration may easily be created, updated or replaced. Insome cases, pluggable voting logics may be used. In an embodiment,voting information may be collected by counting votes. In anotherembodiment, voting information may include additional information suchas timestamps, response times, who voted, who did not vote, or otherparticipation information that may assist in the analysis of votinginformation. A voting configuration may be constructed based on thesevarious types of collaborator information. A voting configuration mayalso include the method of counting votes based upon who is submittingvotes. In a further embodiment, a voting configuration may consider theuser profiles or affiliations of collaborators. The voting configurationmay also consider whether the collaborator is internal or external to agroup or organization. The voting configuration may be used in theanalysis of voting information. According to another embodiment, avoting configuration may include collecting separate voting informationon whether or not a discussion item has been answered or sufficientlyaddressed.

Voting information may be collected and analyzed in various ways. Forexample, votes may be counted on a one vote per collaborator basis. Inanother example, votes cast by certain collaborators may be givengreater weight. In a further example, positive votes may be givengreater weight than negative votes as to allow somewhat controversialdiscussion items to receive a greater chance of being addressed. Forinstance, a positive vote could carry twice as much weight as a negativevote. In another case, the most controversial discussion items may besought out. Additional examples of voting may include multiple voting,ranked voting, scored voting, or any other form of voting customized tothe event. A discussion item's voting score may also be affected by thenumber of times a discussion item is skipped or flagged asinappropriate.

FIG. 2 illustrates another exemplary system 200 for distributeddiscussion collaboration, according to an embodiment of the presentinvention. System 200 shows client device 102 and server 110 coupledover network 130. Server 110 may include view controller 112, votingmodule 114 and selection module 116. System 200 may further includeordering module 202, aggregator 204, or discussion storage device 210.Discussion storage device 210 may be a database or any other datastorage medium. Discussion storage device 210 may be configured to storediscussion items, discussion item information, collaborator information,voting information, comments, or any other related data. According to anembodiment, discussion storage device 210 may be a separate storagemedium coupled to server 110 over network 130. According to anotherembodiment, discussion storage device 210 may exist on server 110.

According to embodiment, aggregator 204 may be configured to receivediscussion items. Discussion items may be received prior to or during anevent. In another embodiment, aggregator 204 may create or update a userprofile for the collaborator and associate the discussion item with thecollaborator. In a further embodiment, aggregator 204 may be configuredto receive discussion items anonymously. Discussion items may beaggregated and voted on before or during an event.

The discussion items aggregated by aggregator 204 may be sorted orarranged based upon information from ordering module 202. In anembodiment, aggregated items may be ordered based upon an analysis ofvoting information received from voting module 114. Voting informationanalysis may be performed by ordering module 202. In another embodiment,some analysis of the voting information may also be performed by votingmodule 114. Ordering may involve determining an order or placement ofthe discussion items in relation to each other. In an embodiment,ordering may include placing or promoting more popular discussion itemson an aggregated list. Ordering may include removing or demoting lesspopular discussion items. In some cases, ordering may include promotingor demoting discussion items on an aggregated list based upon determinedscores for the discussion items. In other cases, ordering may includeprioritizing.

Ordering may also include ranking, according to an embodiment. In someembodiments, a rank may be assigned to a discussion item based uponpositive votes, negative votes, times skipped, times viewed, timesflagged as inappropriate, or any combination of these or other factors.In yet another embodiment, ordering may involve including onlydiscussion items that reach a certain threshold. As would be appreciatedby those skilled in the art(s), ordering may be determined in any numberof ways. Ordering may be determined prior to or during an event. A user,speaker, moderator or any other person given such a responsibility mayconfigure ordering module 202 prior to or during an event.

In an embodiment, discussion items may be merged or combined withaggregated items of another data source or event. The additionalaggregated items may include those of another ongoing event or a pastevent. Aggregated items may also be arranged to overlap or accumulatewith other aggregated items. In some cases, an agenda or event may carryover aggregated items from a past or different event. This may beperformed with the assistance of discussion storage device 210. Inaddition, a new agenda may be displayed and/or created based upon thecombined or merged aggregated items. In other cases, all information foran event is deleted or unavailable for further analysis or review.

In a further embodiment, voting information may be merged or combinedwith voting information of another data source or event. The additionalvoting information may include that of another ongoing event or a pastevent. Voting information may also be arranged to overlap or accumulatewith other voting information. In some cases, an agenda or event maycarry over voting information from a past event. This may be performedwith the assistance of discussion storage device 210. In other cases,all information for an event is deleted or unavailable for furtheranalysis or review.

In another embodiment, collaborator information may be merged orcombined with collaborator information of another data source or event.The additional collaborator information may include that of anotherongoing event or a past event. Collaborator information may also bearranged to overlap or accumulate with other collaborator information.In some cases, an agenda or event may carry over collaboratorinformation from a past event. This may be performed with the assistanceof discussion storage device 210. In other cases, all information for anevent is deleted or unavailable for further analysis or review.

According to another embodiment, system 200 may include moderatorinterface 220. Moderator interface 220 is a user interface that enablesa moderator or someone of a similar responsibility to manage aggregator204, ordering module 202, voting module 114, selection module 116 and/orview controller 112. Moderators or responsible collaborators mayinteract with moderator interface 220 through textual, graphical,audile, or other interactive means. Moderator interface 220 may be usedto configure the operation of the components of system 200. In anembodiment, moderator interface 220 may be used to configure theoperation of any combination of the modules of server 110. Moderatorinterface 220 may also be used to monitor and/or moderate collaboratorparticipation, discussion items, comments, voting and/or any otherrelated information or processes. Moderator interface 220 may be coupledto server 110 directly or over network 130.

According to a further embodiment, system 200 may include caching module230. Caching module 230 may be configured to cache aggregated items,collaborator information, discussion item information, comments, orvoting information. In an embodiment, caching module 230 may be coupledto server 110 directly or over network 130. In another embodiment,caching module 230 may exist on server 110. In a further embodiment,caching module 230 may exist on client device 102.

Caching module 230 may be configured to synchronize information betweenclient device 102 and server 110. In another embodiment, view controller112 may be configured to synchronize information between client device102 and server 110. In a further embodiment, system 200 may beconfigured to synchronize information between the modules within server110. In another embodiment, system 200 may be configured to synchronizeinformation between discussion storage device 210, server 110, and/orclient device 102.

Aggregated items, ordering information and voting information may becommunicated to view controller 112. View controller 112 may beconfigured to display aggregated items, including featured items thathave been voted on, on a user interface or other type of display. In anembodiment, the display may be on client device 102. In anotherembodiment, the display may be on a large viewing means or through anyother means visible to many participants. In another embodiment, viewcontroller 112 may be configured to display the aggregated items withtheir respective voting information. In a further embodiment, respectivevoting information may include a voting score. It may also include avoting amount indicator, which determines how many votes have been cast.The voting amount may be by shown by number of votes cast. It may alsobe shown by a percentage of votes cast out of the total potential votesthat may be cast. The voting information may be shown through text,numbers, graphics, audio, animation, video or any other form ofmultimedia. In an embodiment, the voting information may be shown inreal-time. In another embodiment, voting information may be periodicallyupdated. In a further embodiment, view controller 112 customizes theview for each collaborator based upon an affiliation of the collaboratoror upon submissions by the collaborator. In another embodiment, certaindiscussion items, item information, or voting information may or may notbe available to some collaborators while it is available to othercollaborators.

Discussion items aggregated prior to an event may be used to make anagenda for an event. Client device 102 may also be used to create and/ordisplay an agenda for an event. In some cases, server 110 or a componentconnected to or in communication with server 110 may be used to createand/or display an agenda for an event. According to another embodiment,an agenda for the event could be created in another form. Such a formmay include a physical or electronic document. Other forms may includeusing audio, video or other multimedia to represent an agenda for theevent. According to a further embodiment, agendas may also be customizedbased upon the identity of a collaborator.

Example Display of a Featured Item

FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary user interface view or display 300relating to a system or method for distributed discussion collaboration,according to an embodiment. Display 300 and its parts are shown forpurposes of illustration and not intended to limit the presentinvention. Display 300 shows featured item 302 along with information304 about the collaborator that submitted the discussion item that isnow featured. According to an embodiment, display 300 may be displayedwith the assistance of system 100 or system 200, including viewcontroller 112. Display 300 also shows other discussion items such as320 that have been previously voted on. Featured item 302 and discussionitem 320 both belong to an event, the event being a discussion of the“New Release” of a product. This event can be selected among othertopics, events, or series of topics. Event list 308 illustrates otherexample events or topics of discussion. Each event may be live, ongoing,or subject to a window of participation.

Display 300 shows voting information. A positive vote metric 322 andnegative vote metric 324 are shown for discussion item 320. Arepresentation of a positive or negative vote may be shown in variousways and is not limited to the example shown in this embodiment. Votingscores or metrics can be represented numerically, graphically or in anyother manner which communicates voting results. For example, votingmetrics 322 and 324 are represented by graphical bars. The longer thelength of a bar, as opposed to a shorter length, the larger the votingscore.

Display 300 shows voting mechanisms. Positive voting button 310,negative voting button 312 and skip button 314 are shown for featureditem 320. As would be appreciated by those skilled in the art(s), votesmay be cast with user interface display 300 in any fashion. For example,votes may be cast by pressing or clicking on a representation of apositive or negative vote, such as buttons 310 and 312. In anotherexample, votes may be cast by pressing or clicking on featured item 302or discussion item 320 and voting in response to a voting prompt. Insome cases, a featured item may be flagged as inappropriate by clickingon the “Flag as inappropriate” text 316. The embodiment shown in display500 may also have other features and/or links.

Example Method for Distributed Discussion Collaboration

FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary method 400 for distributed discussioncollaboration, according to an embodiment of the present invention(steps 402-406). In step 402, selection module 116 selects a featureddiscussion item for each of one or more collaborators. The featureddiscussion item is selected for each collaborator based on informationassociated with each respective collaborator. According to anembodiment, selection module 116 is a processing device. According toanother embodiment, selection module 116 is computer code executed by aprocessing device. In some cases, selection may take place with manualassistance. In other cases, selection may take place automatically.

In step 404, the selected featured discussion items are provided fordisplay to respective one or more collaborators. This step may beassisted by view controller 112. In some cases, step 404 may beperformed with manual assistance. In other cases, step 404 may beperformed automatically. In step 406, voting information for thefeatured discussion items displayed to the respective one or morecollaborators is received. Voting module 114 may assist with this step.In some cases, vote collection may take place with manual assistance. Inother cases, vote collection may take place automatically. According toan embodiment, the voting information may be processed and attributed tothe respective discussion items, and the discussion items may be orderedand displayed. According to a further embodiment, a speaker or presentermay review the discussion items and voting information in order to moreeffectively communicate to participants of an event. In some cases,steps 402-406 may take place during a live event having a focal point ofdiscussion. The focal point may be a speaker, presentation, orperformance. In other cases, steps 402-406 may take place over adistributed network.

Selection of a Featured Item

As described earlier, selection module 116 may be configured to select afeatured discussion item for each of one or more collaborators.Selection module 116 may feature a discussion item for one collaboratorbut feature a different discussion item to another collaborator. Eachfeatured item can be individually selected for a collaborator to voteon. According to an embodiment, this selection may be based oninformation associated with each respective collaborator. In an example,collaborator information may include a measure of a collaborator'svoting history. In another example, collaborator information may includea measure of conformity of a collaborator's voting history to a votinghistory of a group of collaborators.

For example, a collaborator's previous votes for an event may becompared to the previous votes cast by collaborators of a select groupfor the same discussion items. Votes cast for discussion items of thesame event or related to an event may also be compared. Votingconformity may be determined or measured based on how similar the votesare between a collaborator and a select group of collaborators.According to a further embodiment, collaborators of a group may beselected based on voting experience, consistency in voting, amount ofparticipation, or membership in other groups. In most cases, groupmembers may be selected to provide a metric for how reliable or seriousa collaborator may be about his or her voting. Votes by members of agroup tend to be provided a greater voting weight than collaboratorswith less of a track record. In a farther embodiment, a voting historyof a group may include votes by the group on discussion items associatedwith an event, wherein the featured discussion item provided to acollaborator is also related to the event.

According to an embodiment, voting module 114 may provide a greater orlesser weight to a collaborator based on collaborator information. Forexample, votes of a collaborator with more voter experience may beprovided greater weight than votes of a brand new collaborator. Inanother example, votes of a collaborator with a voting history thatconforms to a select group of voters may also be provided a greaterweight than other collaborators. According to further embodiments, theseweights may be globally assigned. Different weights may also be providedat the event level. Weights may also be assigned per a series of events.A collaborator may be assigned any number of weights for any number ofcategories or situations. In another embodiment, voting weights maychange over time. In some cases, weights may change for votes alreadycast for a discussion item.

Other factors may contribute to a voting weight or a reliability scoreassociated with a collaborator, according to an embodiment. For example,a reliability score of a collaborator may be decreased if thecollaborator submits a discussion item considered to be inappropriate bya substantial margin. In another example, a collaborator score may benegatively affected if the collaborator marks a question inappropriatewhen the discussion item is considered not to be inappropriate by alarge margin. According to an embodiment, the behavior of a collaboratormay be rated in comparison to other collaborators for an event or seriesof events. In some cases, a collaborator may have a low rating for oneevent or series of events, but may have a high rating in another seriesof events. The collaborator's rating or reliability score can affect aweight of the collaborator's votes.

According to an embodiment, selection module 116 may be configured toselect a featured discussion item with a negative voting history forvoting by a group of collaborators. The collaborators of the selectgroup may be selected based upon a measure of voting experience and avoting history. In other words, a discussion item with, for example, anegative score can be presented as a featured item to more trustedcollaborators for their more heavily weighted votes. In such a case, itcan be determined if the discussion item with a negative voting historydeserves such a negative voting history or whether a discussion item hasbeen voted down surreptitiously. This can result in the promotion,further demotion, or removal of a discussion item. In some cases, it ispossible that a more controversial discussion item will be purposelyfeatured more often. In other cases, it is possible for there to bedivergent views within a selected group of collaborators. In such cases,a group may be selected with a purposefully diverse voting history.

Selection module 116 may also be configured to select a featureddiscussion item for display to a collaborator based upon a rank of thediscussion item and a measure of voting experience of the collaborator,according to an embodiment. In some cases, a rank of a discussion itemmay be deteiinined by ordering module 202 based upon a positive votinghistory. It is also possible that some discussion items are pre-taggedin some manner as being more important than others. According to afurther embodiment, a higher ranked discussion item may be provided to acollaborator with a smaller voting experience. This may result in a morepositive experience for newer participants and can lead to moreparticipation in the future. Future featured questions of lesser rankmay be featured later or later mixed in with higher ranked discussionitems. In another embodiment, lower ranked discussion items may beprovided to collaborators with a larger voting experience. In suchcases, providing less popular featured items to a collaborator with alonger or more frequent voting history can more likely provide votes forless popular questions without easily deterring future participation bythe collaborator. This can help questions of lesser importance get afair chance of receiving a higher rank. On the other hand, this can alsohelp to filter out discussion items that are least likely to benefit thecommunity of collaborators.

Selection module 116 may be configured to select a featured discussionitem for display based upon a rank and a submission time of thediscussion item, according to an embodiment. For example, a brand newdiscussion item with a recent submission time and a neutral voting scoremay be featured to more collaborators. In another example, discussionitems that have been submitted some time ago and have accumulated anumber of votes may be featured less often than others.

Selection module 116 may be configured to select a featured discussionitem for display to a collaborator based upon a geographicalrelationship between the collaborator and the featured discussion item,according to an embodiment. For example, the featured discussion itemmay pertain to a certain country or area of the country. Collaboratorshaving some geographical or legal relationship to the country may bemore interested in the discussion item or may carry more voting weightin regard to the discussion item. In such a case, a collaborator mayreceive more featured items having a geographical relationship to thecollaborator. In other cases, featured items may be presented tocollaborators from a diversity of geographical areas for samplingpurposes. Local pride can sometimes be a motivating factor forcollaborators.

Selection module 116 may be configured to select a featured discussionitem for display based upon a time left for voting and a rank and votinghistory of the featured discussion item, according to an embodiment. Forexample, a discussion item with a closing time window for voting may befeatured more often if it has a lower rank. In some cases, it may have ahigher rank and it may be necessary to collect more votes for thediscussion item before time expires. In another embodiment, a featureddiscussion item may be selected for a collaborator based solely upon atime left for voting.

Selection module 116 may be configured to select or provide two or morefeatured discussion items for display based upon a relationship betweenthe two or more featured discussion items, according to an embodiment.For example, a collaborator may be provided two feature items and askedto select which discussion item will receive a higher vote. Thesefeature items may be related to each other. In some cases, the featureitems may be substantively the same but worded differently.Collaborators may choose the discussion item written more clearly. Inother cases, feature items may be related but of an opposite directionof thought. Many other reasons may exist for providing two featureditems. In another embodiment, two featured items may be presented whichmay not necessarily be related. In a further embodiment, a collaboratormay be presented more than two featured items at a time and asked toselect a favorite. In some cases, a collaborator may be presented morethan two featured items at a time and asked to vote if one or morediscussion items are inappropriate or should be removed.

Selection module 116 may be configured to select a discussion item for acollaborator based upon a measure of voting experience of thecollaborator and a confidence of the discussion item, according to anembodiment. In some cases, a confidence value may be associated with adiscussion item. This confidence value may represent that the discussionitem is more likely to be of a higher rank or may be of a higher rank.It may also represent an importance of the discussion item. In somecases, discussion items of a higher confidence value may be presented tocollaborators with less voting experience in order to ease futureparticipation by the collaborator. In some cases, a collaborator may notbe a new collaborator, but may be returning from being away from thediscussion for some time. In another embodiment, a confidence value maybe assigned to a discussion item. This may help to collect more votinginput for particularly important discussion items.

Selection module 116 may be configured to select featured items fromvarious sets of discussion items to provide an effective mix ofdiscussion items to each collaborator, according to an embodiment. Forexample, one third of featured discussion items for a collaborator maybe selected from the top 30% to ensure a high bar of quality. One sixthof featured discussion items may be selected from the middle 30% toinclude more of the discussion items while filtering out spam. Onefourth may be selected from new discussion items to fold in newersubmissions. One sixth may be selected from the same geographical areaof a collaborator, perhaps for more of a sense of local pride. The finaltwelfth may be from the lowest 30%. In some cases the last 10% will beignored. These discussion items with the lowest voting scores may beplaced on probation. Discussion items flagged as inappropriate more thana certain number of times may also be placed on probation. Discussionitems placed on probation may be excluded from the selection processdescribed above. According to a further embodiment, discussion itemsplaced on probation may be provided to more reliable collaborators toverify if probation is warranted. In another embodiment, selectionmodule 116 may be configured to feature every discussion item not onprobation. This example is for purposes of illustration and is not meantto limit how discussion items are selected.

In another embodiment, discussion items currently in the lead or foundthrough search results may be weighted less than discussion items of ahigher rank. In some cases, those in the lead or found through searchingmay be excluded from selection as a featured item.

Aspects of the present invention, for example, systems 100-300 and/ormethod 400 or any part(s) or function(s) thereof may be implementedusing hardware, software, firmware, tangible computer readable orcomputer usable storage media having instructions stored thereon, or acombination thereof and may be implemented in one or more computersystems or other processing systems.

The present invention has been described above with the aid offunctional building blocks illustrating the implementation of specifiedfunctions and relationships thereof. The boundaries of these functionalbuilding blocks have been arbitrarily defined herein for the convenienceof the description. Alternate boundaries can be defined so long as thespecified functions and relationships thereof are appropriatelyperformed.

The foregoing description of the specific embodiments will so fullyreveal the general nature of the invention that others can, by applyingknowledge within the skill of the art, readily modify and/or adapt forvarious applications such specific embodiments, without undueexperimentation, without departing from the general concept of thepresent invention. Therefore, such adaptations and modifications areintended to be within the meaning and range of equivalents of thedisclosed embodiments, based on the teaching and guidance presentedherein. It is to be understood that the phraseology or terminologyherein is for the purpose of description and not of limitation, suchthat the terminology or phraseology of the present specification is tobe interpreted by the skilled artisan in light of the teachings andguidance.

The breadth and scope of the present invention should not be limited byany of the above-described exemplary embodiments, but should be definedOnly in accordance with the following claims and their equivalents.

What is claimed is:
 1. A computer-implemented method for distributeddiscussion collaboration during a live event having a focal point ofdiscussion, comprising: receiving, by a server coupled to a computernetwork, one or more discussion items associated with an event by one ormore participating collaborators of the event, wherein the one or morediscussion items relate to a focal point of discussion; providing, bythe server coupled to the computer network, the one or more discussionitems for display to the one or more participating collaborators;receiving, by the server coupled to the computer network, votinginformation for the one or more discussion items displayed to the one ormore participating collaborators during the event; receiving, by theserver coupled to the computer network, profile information associatedwith the one or more participating collaborators; applying, by theserver coupled to the computer network, a reliability score to thevoting information based on the profile information of the one or moreparticipating collaborators; and determining, by the server coupled tothe computer network, an order of the one or more discussion items forthe event based on the reliability score.
 2. The computer-implementedmethod of claim 1, wherein the event is one of a talk, a presentation, aperformance, a speech, a debate, a panel discussion, an athletic event,a play, a town hall meeting, a showing, or a viewing.
 3. Thecomputer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the focal point ofdiscussion is one of a speaker, a presentation topic, a politicalcandidate, a panel of speakers, an actor, a singer, an athlete, a video,an audio item, or any other person or thing that draws the attention ofan audience or participants to the same focus of discussion during theevent.
 4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprisingweighting the one or more participating collaborators votes on the oneor more discussion items based upon additional information associatedwith the one or more participating collaborators.
 5. Thecomputer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the weighting includesweighting the votes of the one or more participating collaborators basedupon a measure of conformity of the one or more participatingcollaborators voting history to a voting history of a group ofcollaborators.
 6. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, whereinthe weighting includes weighting the vote of the one or moreparticipating collaborators based upon a measure of voting experience ofthe one or more participating collaborators.
 7. The computer-implementedmethod of claim 1, wherein the receiving one or more discussion itemsincludes receiving a discussion item with a negative voting history forvoting by the group of collaborators, wherein the one or moreparticipating collaborators of the select group are selected based upona measure of voting experience and a voting history.
 8. Thecomputer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the receiving one ormore discussion items includes selecting a discussion item for the oneor more of the participating collaborators based upon a rank of thediscussion item and a measure of voting experience of the one or moreparticipating collaborators.
 9. The computer-implemented method of claim1, wherein the receiving one or more discussion items includes selectinga discussion item for the one or more participating collaborators basedupon a rank and a submission time of the discussion item.
 10. Thecomputer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the receiving one ormore discussion items includes selecting a discussion item for the oneor more participating collaborators based upon a remaining time forvoting and a rank and voting history of the featured discussion item.11. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the providingthe one or more discussion items for display includes providing two ormore featured discussion items for display based upon a relationshipbetween the two or more featured discussion items.
 12. Thecomputer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the profile informationof the one or more participating collaborators includes geographicalinformation, collaborator identity, a voting history, and a discussiontopic preferences of the one or more participating collaborators.
 13. Asystem comprising: a selection module, implemented on one or morecomputing devices, configured to receive one or more discussion itemsassociated with an event by one or more participating collaborators ofthe event, wherein the one or more discussion items-relate to a focalpoint of discussion; a view controller, implemented on the one or morecomputing devices, configured to provide the one or more discussionitems for display to the one or more participating collaborators; avoting module, implemented on the one or more computing devices,configured to receive voting information for the one or more discussionitems displayed to the one or more participating collaborators; thevoting module further configured to receive profile informationassociated with the one or more participating collaborators, and furtherconfigured to apply a reliability score to the voting information basedon the profile information of the one or more participatingcollaborators; and an ordering module, implemented on the one or morecomputing devices, configured to determine an order of the one or morediscussion items for the event based on the reliability score.
 14. Thesystem of claim 13, wherein the voting module is configured to receivevoting information during the event for the one or more discussion itemsover a network.
 15. The system of claim 13, wherein the voting module isconfigured to weight the one or more participating collaborator's voteson the one or more discussion items based upon additional informationassociated with the one or more participating collaborators.
 16. Thesystem of claim 15, wherein the additional information includes ameasure of conformity of the one or more participating collaboratorsvoting history to a voting history of a group of collaborators.
 17. Thesystem of claim 15, wherein the additional information includes ameasure of voting experience of the one or more participatingcollaborators.
 18. The system of claim 13, wherein the selection moduleis configured to receive one or more discussion items a negative votinghistory for voting by a group of collaborators, wherein the one or moreparticipating collaborators of the select group are selected based upona measure of voting experience and a voting history.
 19. The system ofclaim 13, wherein the selection module is configured to receive one ormore discussion items for display to the one or more participatingcollaborators based upon a rank of the one or more discussion items anda measure of voting experience of the one or more participatingcollaborators.
 20. The system of claim 13, wherein the selection moduleis configured to receive one or more discussion items for display basedupon a rank and a submission time of the one or more discussion items.